DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Attorney General William Barr said today a redacted version of Mueller’s report within the week.

Why are Trump, Republicans, the AG and all Trumps Minions trying so hard to fight the release of a document that will completely exonerate him?

But but but.

I am concerned with America's safety, its President's accomplishments and the attempted Coup, not with how Trump ran his businesses when he was a civilian.

Wasn't it you who told me that Fact/lies Matter?

I answered your questions and you can not accept them so start a new thread because EU tariffs is off topic.

This is inaccurate and wrong. This did not happen. smh

I guess you like others repeat lies enough that they become an alternative fact that gets accepted.

Prove it? You mean like you did by reposting some Tweet?

So you posted something that you have no idea of its truthfulness? To what end?

Yes, as you say, Barr could be a Trump guy.

Trouble is you are not looking at the fact that both Rosenstein and Muller are working with Barr, helping him to get the facts out and they are not Trump guys. Far from it.

They would be squealing to the Press if Barr was pulling any shenanigans.

I know that you are not about to go in on ME, in this thread, with this subject title about posting things with questionable truths?


I posted it because it was related to the others posts. I do not know if it's veritably true or not true. I think in this current climate it's certainly not out of the question unless you have some proof that I do not?

Whether the spying is true or not isn't in need of proof.. William Barr is the AG, the only thing at issue is whether the quote is true..

So you use a source you refuse to support about something you're not even sure that you believe and it's someone elses job to show it's false!?

That's pretty rich right there.

and we don't know that do we?

A memo prepared by the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee alleges that the FBI obtained a warrant to surveil a former Donald Trump campaign adviser under false pretenses. Meanwhile, a memo drafted by Democrats, which has not been made public, purports to fill in context that will expose the GOP version as misleading.

One way to referee competing claims about how the FBI got a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would be to release the agency’s application. Such a disclosure would be unprecedented, but the New York Times is asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make it, anyway.

“This motion that we filed on Monday, we think, is the first time anybody’s ever asked the court to actually unseal a specific warrant application,” said David Schulz, co-director of the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School and one of the attorneys representing the Times. “Those are typically very, very closely kept secrets because the government obviously doesn’t want people to know who they’re after.”

In this case, we already know who the FBI was after: Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser on the Trump campaign, who was the target of an October 2016 FISA warrant and three subsequent warrants, each of which authorized surveillance for 90 days.

“The president himself has declassified a number of facts about the warrants,” Schulz said, “including the existence of the warrants, when they were sought, the basis for the warrants — at least in part. The reliance on the Steele dossier is unclear.”

Indeed, a hotly debated question that the FBI’s initial warrant application could help answer is the extent to which the agency depended on information contained in a Democrat-funded dossier produced by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

According to the GOP memo, written by House members led by Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the dossier “formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application,” even though the dossier was largely unverified by the FBI at the time.


What the Nunes memo fails to make clear is that Page was merely a bit player in a dossier that focused on Trump. That the FBI had not corroborated much of the information in the dossier doesn’t mean that the agency had not corroborated a few specific claims about Page or that the court granted a warrant based on faulty information.

The Nunes memo leaves the impression that the FISA court can be easily manipulated — that the FBI can present a bunch of sketchy accusations and get a warrant. Intelligence experts say the court is far more discerning, but the best way for the court to guard its reputation might be to release the FBI’s application to spy on Page (assuming, of course, that the application shows the FBI had to meet a high standard).

“It is in the best interests of the court and the public to ensure that accurate information is made available to enhance public oversight and confidence in the system,” said Jane Kirtley, a media law specialist at the University of Minnesota Law School. “That said, it is very, very difficult to persuade the FISA court to unseal anything. But the circumstances here might be persuasive, in light of the unusual actions of the president and the Republicans.”


Leonard M. Niehoff, a First Amendment expert at the University of Michigan Law School, agreed that the GOP’s unusual declassification of the Nunes memo makes underlying documents, such as the warrant application, fair game.

“The declassified Republican memorandum raises more questions than it answers, and it seems unlikely that anything short of a significant additional disclosure will allow the public to understand what happened and why,” Niehoff said. “The argument for withholding therefore focuses entirely on security and law enforcement concerns. Where the executive branch has determined those interests to be limited, it is hard to understand how they can outweigh that strong public interest in disclosure.”

Niehoff added that, in his view, “the Times has a respectable shot at getting at least some of what it wants, even if not all of it.”

This would be an ALL TIME turn of the table if there is found to be any substance to this. wow

Prove it.



Yeah you would like to lump me in with "fake news" to make yourself feel better about your self own buying into the subject of this thread for 3 years.

I don't..

Would you PLEASE stop putting "hand picked" in front of AG like it was this nefarious act... every AG is hand-picked by the President, every single one.. and every single one has worked to some extent to protect their boss and give them deniability.. every single one.

I'm not saying that Barr is right or wrong or better or worse than any other AG has ever been.. but dropping "hand picked" in every single time just drips with "agenda"...

Thank you for saying that. It seems some people don't understand that.

You are going to all the wrong sources for your fake news that is riddled with agenda. The premise for all that fake news is that there was a Deep State within the FBI out to get Trump and break laws and cut corners to do it .... anything you post that has David Nunes as a source is always going to be highly questionable.

1. Carter Page is reported as having been under surveillance before Trump ever ran for office... so he was a legit "suspect" with or without the 'Dossier'... PLUS - renewing or extending a FISA carries a lower burden of 'proof' than starting one.
2. The dossier was only a small part of the FISA process for carter page..... the FISA warrant would have been issued with or without it.

There is much noise from Trump and the fake news on the right that somehow including some information from the dossier was a heinous crime .... at one time when Trump stooges were really worried about Mueller - they were hanging their hopes that if the FISA warrant could be undermined, then all the evidence that stemmed from it could be thrown out. That's why that aspect of the Mueller investigation was just one of the many ways Trump tried to undermine and attack it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-court...warrant-n893666

"Four different judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, signed off on electronic surveillance of Carter Page.

And that's the end of a long process that involves multiple layers of review within the FBI and the Justice Department, current and former officials say. Anyone trying to put one over on the FISA court would be risking his or her career."

https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/reports-carter-page-subject-fisa-warrant-2013-2014/
[/color]
On Feb. 2, 2018, the New York Times’ annotation of the Nunes memo states, “In accusing the F.B.I. of omitting important information, this memo’s critics say the memo itself omits crucial context: other evidence that did not come from Mr. Steele, much of which remains classified. For example, it makes no note of the fact that Mr. Page attracted the F.B.I.’s interest in 2013, when agents came to believe that Russian spies were trying to recruit him. The F.B.I. obtained a FISA wiretap order then, as well, according to a person familiar with the matter”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...ce-applications

[color:#FFFFFF]Bates, who was placed on the FISA court by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and was its presiding judge from 2009 to 2013, said he has seen no evidence lending credibility to Republican concerns that officials misled the court in obtaining a 2016 FISA warrant and three renewals.

"I will note and note with some force that I have seen nothing that indicates that the court was misled, that the Department of Justice or the intelligence community made misrepresentations to the court," Bates told Lawfare podcast co-hosts David Kris and Nates Jones, the founders of the Culper Partners consulting firm. "And not only have I seen nothing that would indicate that, I have heard nothing that persuasively makes that case."


But by all means carry on posting untrue, fake lies that attack and undermine the FBI, Mueller, the DOJ and whatever else. You and 40 can PM each other about the Deep State and all that fun stuff.

Hand picked in this instance is important because Trump